Understanding the adverse event experience in the S-TRAC adjuvant trial of sunitinib for high-risk renal cell carcinoma.

Until recently, the sole treatment for patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was nephrectomy followed by observation. As metastatic RCC (mRCC) remains largely incurable (5-year survival rate ∼12%), adjuvant treatment, with potential to prevent/delay disease recurrence, is needed. In November 2017, sunitinib was approved in the USA as the first adjuvant therapy for patients at high risk for recurrent RCC postnephrectomy based on results from the S-TRAC trial. Patients eligible for adjuvant treatment have no evidence of disease and may be less willing to tolerate side effects. Therefore, proactive adverse event management is critical for keeping patients on adjuvant treatment and requires understanding the subtle differences in the adverse event profile of sunitinib in the adjuvant versus metastatic RCC setting.

Safety and effectiveness of classical and alternative sunitinib dosing schedules for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

The optimal dosing schedule to maintain the effectiveness of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma - while reducing toxicity - remains an important clinical question. A meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies assessed the relative treatment effects of 4/2, 2/1 and transitional-2/1 schedules on outcomes and adverse events using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Treatment with 2/1 reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 25% and had lower odds of hand-and-foot syndrome compared with the 4/2. A numerical but not 'statistical' benefit in progression-free survival was observed with the transitional-2/1 compared with 4/2. Alternative schedules with the 2/1 and transitional-2/1 may be more clinically beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma than the 4/2 schedule.

Dose-response of pregabalin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES: The pregabalin dose-response for pain, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and sleep quality measures in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and fibromyalgia (FM) is relevant for physicians treating these patients. This analysis aimed to demonstrate the dose-response of pregabalin for each indication and describe the onset (incidence), onset/continuation (prevalence), and resolution of adverse events (AEs) occurring during treatment. METHODS: Data from 14 placebo-controlled, fixed-dose pregabalin trials in pDPN, PHN, and FM were pooled within each indication. Patients had mean baseline pain scores ≥6 on an 11-point numeric rating scale. A hyperbolic Emax dose-response model examined the dose-response of pregabalin for pain, PGIC, and sleep quality. Safety assessments included onset and prevalence of common AEs each week, and resolution in the first 2 months of treatment. RESULTS: In all indications, the likelihood of patients experiencing pain relief and improvements in PGIC and sleep quality increased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing doses. In all indications, new incidences of dizziness and somnolence were highest after 1 week of treatment, with few subsequent new reports at a given dose. Prevalence rates decreased steadily after 1 week of treatment. In FM, new onset weight gain emerged 6-8 weeks following treatment; prevalence rates generally increased then remained steady over time. With the exception of weight gain, many AEs resolved in month 1. CONCLUSION: The dose-response of pregabalin for pain, PGIC, and sleep quality was demonstrated, highlighting the benefit of achieving the maximum recommended dose of 300 mg/day for pDPN, 300-600 mg/day for PHN, and 300-450 mg/day for FM. Common AEs are generally seen within 1 week of starting treatment, with few subsequent new reports at a given dose. New onset weight gain occurs after 6 weeks of treatment, reinforcing the need for regular monitoring of weight.

Progression of fibromyalgia: results from a 2-year observational fibromyalgia and chronic pain study in the US.

BACKGROUND: A previous fibromyalgia (FM) research reports that 20%-47% of diagnosed patients may not meet the study definition of FM 1-2 years after diagnosis. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the progression of FM in a geographically diverse cohort over a 2-year time period. METHODS: This cohort study followed 226 subjects recruited online to assess FM and chronic widespread pain (CWP) diagnosis stability over time. At enrollment (baseline), subjects provided informed consent, completed an online questionnaire consisting of the London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study Screening Questionnaire to screen for CWP (bilateral pain above/below waist lasting ≥1 week in the past 3 months), visited a site for physician evaluation for FM, and completed a questionnaire with validated patient-reported outcome instruments. Subjects were classified into mutually exclusive groups: FM+CWP+ (screened positive for CWP and received physician diagnosis of FM), FM-CWP+ (screened positive for CWP but did not receive physician diagnosis of FM), and FM-CWP- (screened negative for CWP). Approximately 2 years later (follow-up), subjects were reassessed at the same study site and completed a questionnaire with the same patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-six FM+CWP+ subjects completed assessments at both time points; 56 (73.7%) met the FM study definition at follow-up. Twenty subjects no longer met the FM study definition (eleven became FM-CWP- and nine became FM-CWP+). Ten subjects (two from FM-CWP- and eight from FM-CWP+) transitioned into the FM+CWP+ group at follow-up; they reported more tender points and pain interference with sleep and worse physical function at baseline compared with subjects who did not transition to FM+CWP+. Most (76.7%) of the subjects who transitioned into/out of FM+CWP+ experienced changes in CWP, number of positive tender points, or both. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that some FM+CWP+ patients experience fluctuation in symptoms over time, which may reflect the waxing and waning nature of FM and affect diagnosis and treatment.

Burden of illness in fibromyalgia patients with comorbid depression.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the burden of fibromyalgia (FM) in patients with FM taking antidepressant medication for comorbid depression. METHODS: Symptom burden, impact on work and activity, and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) was examined at randomisation in patients enrolled in a clinical trial. Symptom burden was estimated based on self-reported health status measures. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Specific Health Problem scale adapted to FM and a separate HCRU questionnaire were completed. The relationship between FM severity and burden was evaluated. RESULTS: The total population analysed comprised 193 patients; 71 (36.8%) had moderate FM and 119 (61.7%) severe FM. Patients had moderate pain, severe impairment in functioning due to FM, sleep disruption, mild anxiety, and mild depression. In the 7 days preceding randomisation, an average of 58.0% overall work impairment was reported, with 15.2% of working hours missed and 54.0% productivity while at work. In the 3 months preceding randomisation, on average, 5.0 visits per patient were made to healthcare professionals. Physical treatments were used by 34.7% and supplements by 31.6% of patients. Prescription and non-prescription medications, as well as professional services providing help with activities of daily living (ADL) that are impacted by FM, were used by >75% of patients. In addition, 50.4 hours of unpaid help was provided for ADL assistance. Total out-of-pocket expenditures were US$307.1, €410.4, or C$211.3, depending on location. FM burden worsened with increasing FM severity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the significant burden of FM in patients with comorbid depression treated with an antidepressant.

Opioid Use in Fibromyalgia: A Cautionary Tale.

Multiple pharmacotherapies are available for the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM), including opioid analgesics. We postulate that the mechanism of action of traditional opioids predicts their lack of efficacy in FM. Literature searches of the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were conducted using the search term opioid AND fibromyalgia to identify relevant articles, with no date limitations set. Citation lists in returned articles and personal archives of references were also examined for additional relevant items, and articles were selected based on the expert opinions of the authors. We found no evidence from clinical trials that opioids are effective for the treatment of FM. Observational studies have found that patients with FM receiving opioids have poorer outcomes than patients receiving nonopioids, and FM guidelines recommend against the use of opioid analgesics. Despite this, and despite the availability of alternative Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapies and the efficacy of nonpharmacologic therapies, opioids are commonly used in the treatment of FM. Factors associated with opioid use include female sex; geographic variation; psychological factors; a history of opioid use, misuse, or abuse; and patient or physician preference. The long-term use of opioid analgesics is of particular concern in the United States given the ongoing public health emergency relating to excess prescription opioid consumption. The continued use of opioids to treat FM despite a proven lack of efficacy, lack of support from treatment guidelines, and the availability of approved pharmacotherapy options provides a cautionary tale for their use in other chronic pain conditions.

Fibromyalgia Outcomes Over Time: Results from a Prospective Observational Study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal research on outcomes of patients with fibromyalgia is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician and patient-reported outcomes over time among fibromyalgia patients. METHODS: At enrollment (Baseline) and follow-up (approximately 2 years later), consented patients were screened for chronic widespread pain (CWP), attended a physician site visit to determine fibromyalgia status, and completed an online questionnaire assessing pain, sleep, function, health status, productivity, medications, and healthcare resource use. RESULTS: Seventy-six fibromyalgia patients participated at both time points (at Baseline: 86.8% white, 89.5% female, mean age 50.9 years, and mean duration of fibromyalgia 4.1 years). Mean number of tender points at each physician visit was 14.1 and 13.5, respectively; 11 patients no longer screened positive for CWP at follow-up. A majority reported medication use for pain (59.2% at Baseline, 62.0% at Follow-up). The most common medication classes were opioids (32.4%), SSRIs (16.9%), and tramadol (14.1%) at Follow-up. Significant mean changes over time were observed for fibromyalgia symptoms (modified American College of Rheumatology 2010 criteria: 18.4 to 16.9; P=0.004), pain interference with function (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form: 5.9 to 5.3; P=0.013), and sleep (Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale: 58.3 to 52.7; P=0.004). Patients achieving ≥2 point improvement in pain (14.5%) experienced greater changes in pain interference with function (6.8 to 3.4; P=0.001) and sleep (62.4 to 51.0; P=0.061). CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgia patients reported high levels of burden at both time points, with few significant changes observed over time. Outcomes were variable among patients over time and were better among those with greater pain improvement.

Prior authorization in the treatment of patients with pDPN and FM.

PURPOSE: To determine prior authorization (PA) impact on healthcare utilization, costs, and pharmacologic treatment patterns for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) and fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: This retrospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study used medical and pharmacy claims data. Newly diagnosed patients treated for FM or pDPN between 7/1/2007 and 12/31/2011 were included. PA and no PA groups were matched by propensity score 4:1. Medical resource utilization, direct medical and pharmacy costs, and treatment pattern differences were compared. Pre and postindex differences between PA and no PA cohorts were determined by difference in difference analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of 2,315 FM patients (1,852 PA; 463 no PA) demonstrated greater increases in postindex all-cause costs ($197; P = 0.6673) and disease-related costs ($72; P = 0.4186) in the PA cohort. Analysis of 1,300 pDPN patients (1,040 PA; 260 no PA) demonstrated postindex all-cause cost increases of $1,155 more in the no PA cohort (P = 0.6248); disease-related costs decreased $2,809 more in the no PA cohort (P = 0.4312). Treatment patterns were similar between cohorts; opioid usage was higher in the FM PA cohort (P = 0.0082). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of statistically significant differences between PA and no PA cohorts in either FM or pDPN populations for total all-cause or disease-related costs.

Once daily controlled-release pregabalin in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: a phase III, double-blind, randomized withdrawal, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Safety and efficacy of a once daily controlled-released (CR) formulation of pregabalin was evaluated in patients with fibromyalgia using a placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal design. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter study included 6 week single-blind pregabalin CR treatment followed by 13 week double-blind treatment with placebo or pregabalin CR. The starting dose of 165 mg/day was escalated during the first 3 weeks, up to 495 mg/day based on efficacy and tolerability. Patients with ≥50% reduction in average daily pain score at the end of the single-blind phase were randomized to continue pregabalin CR at the optimized dose (330-495 mg/day) or to placebo. The primary endpoint was time to loss of therapeutic response (LTR), defined as <30% pain reduction relative to single-blind baseline or discontinuation owing to lack of efficacy or adverse event (AE). Secondary endpoints included measures of pain severity, global assessment, functional status, tiredness/fatigue, and sleep. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01271933. RESULTS: A total of 441 patients entered the single-blind phase, and 63 were randomized to pregabalin CR and 58 to placebo. The median time to LTR (Kaplan-Meier analysis) was significantly longer in the pregabalin CR group than placebo (58 vs. 22 days, p = 0.02). By trial end, 34/63 (54.0%) pregabalin CR and 41/58 (70.7%) placebo patients experienced LTR. Significantly more patients reported 'benefit from treatment' (Benefit, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Continue Scale) in the pregabalin CR group; no other secondary endpoints were statistically significant. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity (most frequent: dizziness, somnolence). The percentage of pregabalin CR patients discontinuing because of AEs was 12.2% and 4.8% in the single-blind and double-blind phases, respectively (placebo, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Time to LTR was significantly longer with pregabalin CR versus placebo in fibromyalgia patients who initially showed improvement with pregabalin CR, indicating maintenance of response. Pregabalin CR was well tolerated in most patients. Generalizability may be limited by study duration and selective population.

A review of the effects of pregabalin on sleep disturbance across multiple clinical conditions.

Pregabalin is approved for the treatment of a variety of clinical conditions and its analgesic, anxiolytic and anticonvulsant properties are well documented. Pregabalin's effects on sleep, however, are less well known. This review summarizes the published data on the effects of pregabalin on sleep disturbance associated with neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, restless legs syndrome, partial onset seizures and general anxiety disorder. The data demonstrate that pregabalin has a positive benefit on sleep disturbance associated with several different clinical conditions. Polysomnographic data reveal that pregabalin primarily affects sleep maintenance. The evidence indicates that pregabalin has a direct effect on sleep that is distinct from its analgesic, anxiolytic and anticonvulsant effects.

Sensory symptoms in restless legs syndrome: the enigma of pain.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common sensorimotor condition characterized by an urge to move the legs, worsening of symptoms at rest and during the evening/night, and improvement of symptoms with movement. Our review explores the role and impact of sensory symptoms in RLS. The phenomenology of RLS is discussed, highlighting the difficulty patients have in describing their sensations and in differentiating between sensory and motor symptoms. Sensory symptoms have a significant impact on quality of life but remain much less well understood than motor symptoms and sleep disturbances in RLS. Although RLS symptoms usually are not described as painful, sensory manifestations in RLS do share some similarities with chronic pain sensations, and RLS frequently occurs in chronic pain and neuropathic conditions. Peripheral neuropathies may account for some of the sensory disturbances in secondary RLS, while alterations in central somatosensory processing may be a more viable explanation for the sensory disturbances in primary RLS. The effectiveness of analgesics in treating RLS supports the concept of abnormal sensory modulation in RLS and suggests an overlap between pain modulatory pathways and sensory disturbances. Future studies are needed to better understand the experiential and biologic aspects of altered sensory experiences in RLS.